Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

ANTECEDENTES: Esta la segunda actualización de una revisión publicada anteriormente en la Biblioteca Cochrane (2015, primera actualización en 2017). La interleucina 5 (IL­5) es la principal citoquina implicada en la proliferación, maduración, activación y supervivencia de los eosinófilos, que provocan la inflamación de las vías respiratorias y son una característica típica del asma. Los estudios sobre los anticuerpos monoclonales dirigidos a la IL­5 o a su receptor (IL­5R) indican que estos reducen las exacerbaciones del asma, mejoran la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (CdVRS) y la función pulmonar en pacientes adecuadamente seleccionados, lo cual justifica su inclusión en las últimas guías. OBJETIVOS: Comparar los efectos de los tratamientos dirigidos a la señalización de la IL­5 (anti­IL­5 o anti­IL­5Rα) con placebo, con respecto a las exacerbaciones, las medidas de calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (CdVRS) y la función pulmonar en adultos y niños con asma crónica, y específicamente en los que presentan asma eosinofílica resistente a los tratamientos existentes. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, y en dos registros de ensayos clínicos, sitios web de fabricantes y listas de referencias de los estudios incluidos. La búsqueda más reciente se realizó el 7 de febrero de 2022. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados que compararon mepolizumab, reslizumab y benralizumab versus placebo en adultos y niños con asma. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente extrajeron los datos y analizaron los desenlaces mediante un modelo de efectos aleatorios. Se utilizaron los métodos estándar previstos por Cochrane. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Diecisiete estudios con unos 7600 participantes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Seis administraron mepolizumab, cinco proporcionaron reslizumab y seis benralizumab. Un estudio que utilizó benralizumab finalizó antes de tiempo por decisión de los patrocinadores y no proporcionó datos. Los estudios se realizaron principalmente en personas con asma eosinofílica grave, que se definió de forma parecida aunque variable. Uno de ellos se realizó en niños de seis a 17 años; otros nueve incluyeron a niños mayores de 12 años, pero no informaron de los resultados por grupos de edad por separado. Se consideró que el riesgo general de sesgo fue bajo, ya que todos los estudios que aportaron datos tuvieron una metodología sólida. La certeza de la evidencia para todas las comparaciones fue en general alta al utilizar el método GRADE, con la excepción del mepolizumab intravenoso (IV) y subcutáneo (SC) porque se trata de vías de administración no autorizadas en la actualidad. Los tratamientos con inhibidores de la IL­5 evaluados redujeron las tasas de exacerbación del asma "clínicamente significativa" (definida por el tratamiento con corticosteroides sistémicos durante tres días o más) en aproximadamente la mitad de los participantes con asma eosinofílica grave que recibían atención estándar (al menos una dosis media de corticosteroides inhalados [CSI]) con un control deficiente de la enfermedad (dos o más exacerbaciones en el año anterior o una puntuación de 1,5 o más según el Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]). Los cocientes de tasas para estos efectos fueron de 0,45 (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,36 a 0,55; evidencia de certeza alta) para mepolizumab SC, 0,53 (IC del 95%: 0,44 a 0,64; evidencia de certeza moderada) para mepolizumab IV, 0,43 (IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,55; evidencia de certeza alta) para reslizumab IV y 0,59 (IC del 95%: 0,52 a 0,66; evidencia de certeza alta) para benralizumab SC. Los participantes que no presentaban asma eosinofílica tratados con benralizumab también mostraron una reducción significativa de las tasas de exacerbaciones, un efecto que no se observó con reslizumab IV, aunque solo en un estudio. No hubo datos sobre los participantes que no presentaban asma eosinofílica tratados con mepolizumab. Hubo mejorías moderadas en las puntuaciones validadas de la CdVRS con todos los inhibidores de la IL­5 en el asma eosinofílica grave. Se alcanzó la diferencia mínima clínicamente importante (DMCI) del George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; cambio de 4 puntos) para benralizumab, pero la mejoría en el ACQ y el Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), que se centran en los síntomas del asma, no alcanzó la DMCI (cambio de 0,5 puntos tanto en el ACQ como en el AQLQ) para todas las intervenciones. La evidencia fue débil en cuanto a la mejoría en las puntuaciones de la CdVRS en los participantes que no presentaban asma eosinofílica tratados con benralizumab y reslizumab, pero los análisis de las diferencias de subgrupos obtuvieron resultados negativos. Todos los tratamientos con inhibidores de la IL­5 produjeron pequeñas mejorías en el flujo espiratorio forzado prebroncodilatador en un segundo (VEF1) de entre 0,08 y 0,15 l en los participantes con asma eosinofílica, las cuales podrían no ser suficientes para que los pacientes las detecten. No hubo un exceso de eventos adversos graves con ningún tratamiento inhibidor de la IL­5; de hecho, hubo una reducción de tales eventos con benralizumab, probablemente derivada de un menor número de ingresos hospitalarios relacionados con el asma. No hubo diferencias en comparación con placebo en los eventos adversos que provocaran la suspensión del tratamiento con mepolizumab o reslizumab, pero hubo significativamente más interrupciones con el benralizumab que con placebo, aunque los números absolutos fueron pequeños (42/2026 [2,1%] benralizumab versus 11/1227 [0,9%] placebo). No están claras las implicaciones con respecto a la eficacia o los eventos adversos. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: En general este análisis apoya la administración de los tratamientos inhibidores de la IL­5 como complemento a la atención estándar en las personas con asma eosinofílica grave y un control deficiente de los síntomas. Estos tratamientos reducen a cerca de la mitad la tasa de exacerbaciones del asma en esta población. Hay evidencia limitada de mejorías en las puntuaciones de la CdVRS y en la función pulmonar, aunque es posible que no alcancen niveles clínicamente detectables. Los estudios no informaron de problemas de seguridad con el mepolizumab ni el reslizumab, ni eventos adversos graves excesivos con benralizumab, aunque se mantiene la duda sobre qué eventos adversos son lo suficientemente significativos para la suspensión inmediata. Se necesitan estudios de investigación adicionales sobre los marcadores biológicos para evaluar la respuesta al tratamiento, la duración óptima y los efectos a largo plazo del tratamiento, el riesgo de recurrencia al retirarlo, los pacientes que no presentan asma eosinofílica, los niños (especialmente menores de 12 años), que comparen los tratamientos inhibidores de la IL­5 entre sí y, en pacientes que cumplan criterios de elegibilidad relevantes, con otros tratamientos biológicos (anticuerpos monoclonales). En el caso del benralizumab, los estudios futuros deben vigilar atentamente las tasas de eventos adversos que provocan la interrupción inmediata.

Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based paediatric early warning system improvement programme: the PUMA mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric mortality rates in the United Kingdom are amongst the highest in Europe. Clinically missed deterioration is a contributory factor. Evidence to support any single intervention to address this problem is limited, but a cumulative body of research highlights the need for a systems approach. METHODS: An evidence-based, theoretically informed, paediatric early warning system improvement programme (PUMA Programme) was developed and implemented in two general hospitals (no onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) and two tertiary hospitals (with onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) in the United Kingdom. Designed to harness local expertise to implement contextually appropriate improvement initiatives, the PUMA Programme includes a propositional model of a paediatric early warning system, system assessment tools, guidance to support improvement initiatives and structured facilitation and support. Each hospital was evaluated using interrupted time series and qualitative case studies. The primary quantitative outcome was a composite metric (adverse events), representing the number of children monthly that experienced one of the following: mortality, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, unplanned admission to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, or unplanned admission to Higher Dependency Unit. System changes were assessed qualitatively through observations of clinical practice and interviews with staff and parents. A qualitative evaluation of implementation processes was undertaken. RESULTS: All sites assessed their paediatric early warning systems and identified areas for improvement. All made contextually appropriate system changes, despite implementation challenges. There was a decline in the adverse event rate trend in three sites; in one site where system wide changes were organisationally supported, the decline was significant (ß = -0.09 (95% CI: - 0.15, - 0.05); p = < 0.001). Changes in trends coincided with implementation of site-specific changes. CONCLUSIONS: System level change to improve paediatric early warning systems can bring about positive impacts on clinical outcomes, but in paediatric practice, where the patient population is smaller and clinical outcomes event rates are low, alternative outcome measures are required to support research and quality improvement beyond large specialist centres, and methodological work on rare events is indicated. With investment in the development of alternative outcome measures and methodologies, programmes like PUMA could improve mortality and morbidity in paediatrics and other patient populations.

Association of asthma severity and educational attainment at age 6-7 years in a birth cohort: population-based record-linkage study.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting research about the association between asthma and poor educational attainment that may be due to asthma definitions. Our study creates seven categories of current chronic and acute asthma to investigate if there is an association for poorer educational attainment at age 6-7 years, and the role of respiratory infections and school absence. METHODS: This study used a population-based electronic cross-sectional birth cohort 1998-2005, in Wales, UK, using health and education administrative datasets. Current asthma or wheeze categories were developed using clinical management guidelines in general practice (GP) data, acute asthma was inpatient hospital admissions and respiratory infections were the count of GP visits, from birth to age 6-7 years. We used multilevel logistic regression grouped by schools to ascertain if asthma or wheeze was associated with not attaining the expected level in teacher assessment at Key Stage 1 (KS1) adjusting for sociodemographics, perinatal, other respiratory illness and school characteristics. We tested if absence from school was a mediator in this relationship using the difference method. RESULTS: There were 85 906 children in this population representative cohort with 7-year follow-up. In adjusted multilevel logistic regression, only asthma inpatient hospital admission was associated with increased risk for not attaining the expected level at KS1 (adjusted OR 1.14 95% CI (1.02 to 1.27)). Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) GP contacts remained an independent predictor for not attaining the expected level of education. Absence from school was a potential mediator of the association between hospital admission and educational attainment. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and educators need to be aware that children who have inpatient hospital admissions for asthma or wheeze, or repeated LRTI, may require additional educational support for their educational outcomes.

Effect of Amoxicillin Dose and Treatment Duration on the Need for Antibiotic Re-treatment in Children With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: The CAP-IT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal dose and duration of oral amoxicillin for children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are unclear. Objective: To determine whether lower-dose amoxicillin is noninferior to higher dose and whether 3-day treatment is noninferior to 7 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, 2 × 2 factorial noninferiority trial enrolling 824 children, aged 6 months and older, with clinically diagnosed CAP, treated with amoxicillin on discharge from emergency departments and inpatient wards of 28 hospitals in the UK and 1 in Ireland between February 2017 and April 2019, with last trial visit on May 21, 2019. Interventions: Children were randomized 1:1 to receive oral amoxicillin at a lower dose (35-50 mg/kg/d; n = 410) or higher dose (70-90 mg/kg/d; n = 404), for a shorter duration (3 days; n = 413) or a longer duration (7 days; n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinically indicated antibiotic re-treatment for respiratory infection within 28 days after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 8%. Secondary outcomes included severity/duration of 9 parent-reported CAP symptoms, 3 antibiotic-related adverse events, and phenotypic resistance in colonizing Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates. Results: Of 824 participants randomized into 1 of the 4 groups, 814 received at least 1 dose of trial medication (median [IQR] age, 2.5 years [1.6-2.7]; 421 [52%] males and 393 [48%] females), and the primary outcome was available for 789 (97%). For lower vs higher dose, the primary outcome occurred in 12.6% with lower dose vs 12.4% with higher dose (difference, 0.2% [1-sided 95% CI -∞ to 4.0%]), and in 12.5% with 3-day treatment vs 12.5% with 7-day treatment (difference, 0.1% [1-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.9]). Both groups demonstrated noninferiority with no significant interaction between dose and duration (P = .63). Of the 14 prespecified secondary end points, the only significant differences were 3-day vs 7-day treatment for cough duration (median 12 days vs 10 days; hazard ratio [HR], 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4]; P = .04) and sleep disturbed by cough (median, 4 days vs 4 days; HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4]; P = .03). Among the subgroup of children with severe CAP, the primary end point occurred in 17.3% of lower-dose recipients vs 13.5% of higher-dose recipients (difference, 3.8% [1-sided 95% CI, -∞ to10%]; P value for interaction = .18) and in 16.0% with 3-day treatment vs 14.8% with 7-day treatment (difference, 1.2% [1-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 7.4%]; P value for interaction = .73). Conclusions and Relevance: Among children with CAP discharged from an emergency department or hospital ward (within 48 hours), lower-dose outpatient oral amoxicillin was noninferior to higher dose, and 3-day duration was noninferior to 7 days, with regard to need for antibiotic re-treatment. However, disease severity, treatment setting, prior antibiotics received, and acceptability of the noninferiority margin require consideration when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN76888927.

Interventions for escalation of therapy for acute exacerbations of asthma in children: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is an illness that commonly affects adults and children, and it serves as a common reason for children to attend emergency departments. An asthma exacerbation is characterised by acute or subacute worsening of shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness and may be triggered by viral respiratory infection, poor compliance with usual medication, a change in the weather, or exposure to allergens or irritants. Most children with asthma have mild or moderate exacerbations and respond well to first-line therapy (inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids). However, the best treatment for the small proportion of seriously ill children who do not respond to first-line therapy is not well understood. Currently, a large number of treatment options are available and there is wide variation in management. OBJECTIVES: Main objective - To summarise Cochrane Reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment for children with acute exacerbations of asthma (i.e. after first-line treatments, titrated oxygen delivery, and administration of intermittent inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists and oral corticosteroids have been tried and have failed) Secondary objectives - To identify gaps in the current evidence base that will inform recommendations for future research and subsequent Cochrane Reviews - To categorise information on reported outcome measures used in trials of escalation of treatment for acute exacerbations of asthma in children, and to make recommendations for development and reporting of standard outcomes in future trials and reviews - To identify relevant randomised controlled trials that have been published since the date of publication of each included review METHODS: We included Cochrane Reviews assessing interventions for children with acute exacerbations of asthma. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search is current to 28 December 2019. We also identified trials that were potentially eligible for, but were not currently included in, published reviews. We assessed the quality of included reviews using the ROBIS criteria (tool used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews). We presented an evidence synthesis of data from reviews alongside an evidence map of clinical trials. Primary outcomes were length of stay, hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, and adverse effects. We summarised all findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 potentially eligible Cochrane Reviews but extracted data from, and rated the quality of, 13 reviews that reported results for children alone. We excluded four reviews as one did not include any randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one did not provide subgroup data for children, and the last two had been updated and replaced by subsequent reviews. The 13 reviews included 67 trials; the number of trials in each review ranged from a single trial up to 27 trials. The vast majority of comparisons included between one and three trials, involving fewer than 100 participants. The total number of participants included in reviews ranged from 40 to 2630. All studies included children; 16 (24%) included children younger than two years of age. Most of the reviews reported search dates older than four years. We have summarised the published evidence as outlined in Cochrane Reviews. Key findings, in terms of our primary outcomes, are that (1) intravenous magnesium sulfate was the only intervention shown to reduce hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence); (2) no evidence suggested that any intervention reduced the risk of intensive care admission (low- to very low-certainty evidence); (3) the risk of hospital admission was reduced by the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta2-agonists (moderate-certainty evidence), the use of intravenous magnesium sulfate (high-certainty evidence), and the use of inhaled heliox (low-certainty evidence); (4) the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate to usual bronchodilator therapy appears to reduce serious adverse events during hospital admission (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) aminophylline increased vomiting compared to placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) and increased nausea and nausea/vomiting compared to intravenous beta2-agonists (low-certainty evidence); and (6) the addition of anticholinergic therapy to short-acting beta2-agonists appeared to reduce the risk of nausea (high-certainty evidence) and tremor (moderate-certainty evidence) but not vomiting (low-certainty evidence). We considered 4 of the 13 reviews to be at high risk of bias based on the ROBIS framework. In all cases, this was due to concerns regarding identification and selection of studies. The certainty of evidence varied widely (by review and also by outcome) and ranged from very low to high. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on interventions for escalation of therapy for acute exacerbations of asthma in children from Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials. A vast majority of comparisons involved between one and three trials and fewer than 100 participants, making it difficult to assess the balance between benefits and potential harms. Due to the lack of comparative studies between various treatment options, we are unable to make firm practice recommendations. Intravenous magnesium sulfate appears to reduce both hospital length of stay and the risk of hospital admission. Hospital admission is also reduced with the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta2-agonists. However, further research is required to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from these therapies. Due to the relatively rare incidence of acute severe paediatric asthma, multi-centre research will be required to generate high-quality evidence. A number of existing Cochrane Reviews should be updated, and we recommend that a new review be conducted on the use of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Important priorities include development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future trials in acute severe asthma exacerbations and determination of clinically important differences in these outcomes, which can then inform adequately powered future trials.

Oral steroids for resolution of otitis media with effusion in children (OSTRICH): a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Children with persistent hearing loss due to otitis media with effusion are commonly managed by surgical intervention. A safe, cheap, and effective medical treatment would enhance treatment options. Underpowered, poor-quality trials have found short-term benefit from oral steroids. We aimed to investigate whether a short course of oral steroids would achieve acceptable hearing in children with persistent otitis media with effusion and hearing loss. METHODS: In this individually randomised, parallel, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial we recruited children aged 2-8 years with symptoms attributable to otitis media with effusion for at least 3 months and with confirmed bilateral hearing loss. Participants were recruited from 20 ear, nose, and throat (ENT), paediatric audiology, and audiovestibular medicine outpatient departments in England and Wales. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to sequentially numbered identical prednisolone (oral steroid) or placebo packs by use of computer-generated random permuted block sizes stratified by site and child's age. The primary outcome was audiometry-confirmed acceptable hearing at 5 weeks. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN49798431. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2014, and April 5, 2016, 1018 children were screened, of whom 389 were randomised. 200 were assigned to receive oral steroids and 189 to receive placebo. Hearing at 5 weeks was assessed in 183 children in the oral steroid group and in 180 in the placebo group. Acceptable hearing was observed in 73 (40%) children in the oral steroid group and in 59 (33%) in the placebo group (absolute difference 7% [95% CI -3 to 17], number needed to treat 14; adjusted odds ratio 1·36 [95% CI 0·88-2·11]; p=0·16). There was no evidence of any significant differences in adverse events or quality-of-life measures between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Otitis media with effusion in children with documented hearing loss and attributable symptoms for at least 3 months has a high rate of spontaneous resolution. A short course of oral prednisolone is not an effective treatment for most children aged 2-8 years with persistent otitis media with effusion, but is well tolerated. One in 14 children might achieve improved hearing but not quality of life. Discussions about watchful waiting and other interventions will be supported by this evidence. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

Variability of outcome measures in trials of intravenous therapy in acute severe paediatric asthma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the variability of primary and secondary outcomes used in trials of intravenous bronchodilators in children with acute severe paediatric asthma. METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomised trials in children (less than18 years) with acute severe paediatric asthma comparing intravenous bronchodilator therapy to another treatment. Initial search was performed on 7 January 2016 with an updated search performed on 6 September 2018. Primary and secondary outcomes were collated. RESULTS: We identified 35 published papers and four registered study protocols. 56 primary outcomes were found, the most common being a clinical asthma score (23/56; 41%). Other identified primary outcomes included bedside tests of respiratory function (11/56; 20%) and measures of length of stay (9/56; 16%). There were a total of 60 different secondary outcomes, the most common were various length of stay measures (24/60; 40%) and adverse events (11/60; 18%). CONCLUSION: Studies comparing intravenous treatment modalities for children with acute severe paediatric asthma exhibit great variation in the type, number and timing of outcome measures used. There are no patient or family-specific outcomes reported. There is a need to develop international consensus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017055331.

A prospective, mixed-methods, before and after study to identify the evidence base for the core components of an effective Paediatric Early Warning System and the development of an implementation package containing those core recommendations for use in the UK: Paediatric early warning system - utilisation and mortality avoidance- the PUMA study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In hospital, staff need to routinely monitor patients to identify those who are seriously ill, so that they receive timely treatment to improve their condition. A Paediatric Early Warning System is a multi-faceted socio-technical system to detect deterioration in children, which may or may not include a track and trigger tool. It functions to monitor, detect and prompt an urgent response to signs of deterioration, with the aim of preventing morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study is to develop an evidence-based improvement programme to optimise the effectiveness of Paediatric Early Warning Systems in different inpatient contexts, and to evaluate the feasibility and potential effectiveness of the programme in predicting deterioration and triggering timely interventions. METHODS: This study will be conducted in two district and two specialist children's hospitals. It deploys an Interrupted Time Series (ITS) design in conjunction with ethnographic cases studies with embedded process evaluation. Informed by Translational Mobilisation Theory and Normalisation Process Theory, the study is underpinned by a functions based approach to improvement. Workstream (1) will develop an evidence-based improvement programme to optimise Paediatric Early Warning System based on systematic reviews. Workstream (2) consists of observation and recording outcomes in current practice in the four sites, implementation of the improvement programme and concurrent process evaluation, and evaluation of the impact of the programme. Outcomes will be mortality and critical events, unplanned admission to Paediatric Intensive Care (PICU) or Paediatric High Dependency Unit (PHDU), cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, medical emergencies requiring immediate assistance, reviews by PICU staff, and critical deterioration, with qualitative evidence of the impact of the intervention on Paediatric Early Warning System and learning from the implementation process. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the background, rationale and design for this mixed methods study. This will be the most comprehensive study of Paediatric Early Warning Systems and the first to deploy a functions-based approach to improvement in the UK with the aim to improve paediatric patient safety and reduce mortality. Our findings will inform recommendations about the safety processes for every hospital treating paediatric in-patients across the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Sponsor: Cardiff University, 30-36 Newport Road, Cardiff, CF24 0DE Sponsor ref.: SPON1362-14. Funder: National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research Programme (NIHR HS&DR) Funder reference: 12/178/17. Research Ethics Committee reference: 15/SW/0084 [13/04/2015]. PROSPERO reference: CRD42015015326 [23/01/2015]. ISRCTN: 94228292 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94228292 [date of application 13/05/2015; date of registration: 18/08/2015]. Prospective registration prior to data collection and participant consent commencing in September 2014.

Defining significant childhood illness and injury in the Emergency Department: a consensus of UK and Ireland expert opinion.

BACKGROUND: Clarifying whether paediatric early warning scores (PEWS) accurately predict significant illness is a research priority for UK and Ireland paediatric emergency medicine (EM). However, a standardised list of significant conditions to benchmark these scores does not exist. OBJECTIVES: To establish standardised significant illness endpoints for use in determining the performance accuracy of PEWS and safety systems in emergency departments (ED), using a consensus of expert opinion in the UK and Ireland. DESIGN: Between July 2017 and February 2018, three online Delphi rounds established a consensus on 'significant' clinical conditions, derived from a list of common childhood illness/injury ED presentations. Conditions warranting acute hospital admission in the opinion of the respondent were defined as 'significant', using a 5-point Likert scale. The consensus was a priori ≥80% (positive or negative). 258 clinical conditions were tested. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: Eligible participants were consultants in acute or EM paediatrics, or adult EM, accessed via 53 PERUKI (Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland)'s research collaborative sites, and 27 GAPRUKI (General and Adolescent Paediatric Research in the UK and Ireland)'s sites, 17 of which overlap with PERUKI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To create a list of conditions regarded as 'significant'with ≥80% expert consensus. RESULTS: 43 (68%) of 63 PERUKI and GAPRUKI sites responded; 295 experts were invited to participate. Participants in rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 223 (76%), 177 (60%) and 148 (50%), respectively; 154 conditions reached positive consensus as 'significant'; 1 condition reached a negative consensus (uncomplicated Henoch-Schönlein purpura); and 37 conditions achieved non-consensus. CONCLUSIONS: A list of significant childhood conditions has been created using UK and Irish expert consensus, for research purposes, for the first time. This will be used as the benchmark endpoint list for future research into PEWS/safety systems performance in EDs.

Patient Safety Incidents Involving Sick Children in Primary Care in England and Wales: A Mixed Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The UK performs poorly relative to other economically developed countries on numerous indicators of care quality for children. The contribution of iatrogenic harm to these outcomes is unclear. As primary care is the first point of healthcare contact for most children, we sought to investigate the safety of care provided to children in this setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook a mixed methods investigation of reports of primary care patient safety incidents involving sick children from England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System between 1 January 2005 and 1 December 2013. Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident reports meeting prespecified criteria, and then descriptively analyzed these reports to identify the most frequent and harmful incident types. This was followed by an in-depth thematic analysis of a purposive sample of reports to understand the reasons underpinning incidents. Key candidate areas for strengthening primary care provision and reducing the risks of systems failures were then identified through multidisciplinary discussions. Of 2,191 safety incidents identified from 2,178 reports, 30% (n = 658) were harmful, including 12 deaths and 41 cases of severe harm. The children involved in these incidents had respiratory conditions (n = 387; 18%), injuries (n = 289; 13%), nonspecific signs and symptoms, e.g., fever (n = 281; 13%), and gastrointestinal or genitourinary conditions (n = 268; 12%), among others. Priority areas for improvement included safer systems for medication provision in community pharmacies; triage processes to enable effective and timely assessment, diagnosis, and referral of acutely sick children attending out-of-hours services; and enhanced communication for robust safety netting between professionals and parents. The main limitations of this study result from underreporting of safety incidents and variable data quality. Our findings therefore require further exploration in longitudinal studies utilizing case review methods. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights opportunities to reduce iatrogenic harm and avoidable child deaths. Globally, healthcare systems with primary-care-led models of delivery must now examine their existing practices to determine the prevalence and burden of these priority safety issues, and utilize improvement methods to achieve sustainable improvements in care quality.

Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma.

BACKGROUND: This review is the first update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) have been developed, with recent studies suggesting that they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function. These are being incorporated into asthma guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related qualify of life (HRQoL) measures, and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies on 6000 participants met the inclusion criteria. Four used mepolizumab, four used reslizumab, and five used benralizumab. One study in benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. Eight included children over 12 years but these results were not reported separately. We deemed the risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data being of robust methodology. We considered the quality of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, with the exception of intravenous mepolizumab because this is not currently a licensed delivery route.All of the anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard of care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 1.5 or more). Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, but no data were available for non-eosinophilic participants, and mepolizumab or reslizumab.We saw modest improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. However these did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference for ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) only assessed in two studies. The improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab, the only intervention for which data were available in this subset, was not statistically significant, but the test for subgroup difference was negative.All anti-IL-5 treatments produced a small but statistically significant improvement in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.11 L.There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment, and indeed a reduction in favour of mepolizumab that could be due to a beneficial effect on asthma-related serious adverse events. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (36/1599 benralizumab versus 9/998 placebo).Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab all markedly reduced blood eosinophils, but benralizumab resulted in almost complete depletion, whereas a small number remained with mepolizumab and reslizumab. The implications for efficacy and/or adverse events are unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall our study supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard of care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. There were no safety concerns regarding mepolizumab or reslizumab, and no excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), and comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in people eligible for both, to anti-immunoglobulin E. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Inhaled magnesium sulfate in the treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations can be frequent and range in severity from mild to life-threatening. The use of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) is one of numerous treatment options available during acute exacerbations. While the efficacy of intravenous MgSO4 has been demonstrated, the role of inhaled MgSO4 is less clear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled MgSO4 administered in acute asthma. SPECIFIC AIMS: to quantify the effects of inhaled MgSO4 I) in addition to combination treatment with inhaled ß2-agonist and ipratropium bromide; ii) in addition to inhaled ß2-agonist; and iii) in comparison to inhaled ß2-agonist. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials and online trials registries in September 2017. We supplemented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies and by contact with trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs including adults or children with acute asthma were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included studies if patients were treated with nebulised MgSO4 alone or in combination with ß2-agonist or ipratropium bromide or both, and were compared with the same co-intervention alone or inactive control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias. We made efforts to collect missing data from authors. We present results, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pulmonary function, clinical severity scores and vital signs; and risk ratios (RRs) for hospital admission. We used risk differences (RDs) to analyse adverse events because events were rare. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (43 references) of varying methodological quality were eligible; they included 2907 randomised patients (2777 patients completed). Nine of the 25 included studies involved adults; four included adult and paediatric patients; eight studies enrolled paediatric patients; and in the remaining four studies the age of participants was not stated. The design, definitions, intervention and outcomes were different in all 25 studies; this heterogeneity made direct comparisons difficult. The quality of the evidence presented ranged from high to very low, with most outcomes graded as low or very low. This was largely due to concerns about the methodological quality of the included studies and imprecision in the pooled effect estimates. Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled ß2-agonist and ipratropiumWe included seven studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, results were inconsistent overall and the largest study reporting this outcome found no between-group difference at 60 minutes (MD -0.3 % predicted peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), 95% CI -2.71% to 2.11%). Admissions to hospital at initial presentation may be reduced by the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; participants = 1308; studies = 4; I² = 52%) but no difference was detected for re-admissions or escalation of care to ITU/HDU. Serious adverse events during admission were rare. There was no difference between groups for all adverse events during admission (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; participants = 1197; studies = 2). Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled ß2-agonistWe included 13 studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, none of the pooled results showed a conclusive benefit as measured by FEV1 or PEFR. Pooled results for hospital admission showed a point estimate that favoured the combination of MgSO4 and ß2-agonist, but the confidence interval includes the possibility of admissions increasing in the intervention group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.15; participants = 375; studies = 6; I² = 0%). There were no serious adverse events reported by any of the included studies and no between-group difference for all adverse events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; participants = 694; studies = 5). Inhaled magnesium sulfate versus inhaled ß2-agonistWe included four studies in this comparison. The evidence for the efficacy of ß2-agonists in acute asthma is well-established and therefore this could be considered a historical comparison. Two studies reported a benefit of ß2-agonist over MgSO4 alone for PEFR and two studies reported no difference; we did not pool these results. Admissions to hospital were only reported by one small study and events were rare, leading to an uncertain result. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies in this comparison; one small study reported mild to moderate adverse events but the result is imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with nebulised MgSO4 may result in modest additional benefits for lung function and hospital admission when added to inhaled ß2-agonists and ipratropium bromide, but our confidence in the evidence is low and there remains substantial uncertainty. The recent large, well-designed trials have generally not demonstrated clinically important benefits. Nebulised MgSO4 does not appear to be associated with an increase in serious adverse events. Individual studies suggest that those with more severe attacks and attacks of shorter duration may experience a greater benefit but further research into subgroups is warranted.Despite including 24 trials in this review update we were unable to pool data for all outcomes of interest and this has limited the strength of the conclusions reached. A core outcomes set for studies in acute asthma is needed. This is particularly important in paediatric studies where measuring lung function at the time of an exacerbation may not be possible. Placebo-controlled trials in patients not responding to standard maximal treatment, including inhaled ß2-agonists and ipratropium bromide and systemic steroids, may help establish if nebulised MgSO4 has a role in acute asthma. However, the accumulating evidence suggests that a substantial benefit may be unlikely.

Mutations in TRNT1 cause congenital sideroblastic anemia with immunodeficiency, fevers, and developmental delay (SIFD).

Mutations in genes encoding proteins that are involved in mitochondrial heme synthesis, iron-sulfur cluster biogenesis, and mitochondrial protein synthesis have previously been implicated in the pathogenesis of the congenital sideroblastic anemias (CSAs). We recently described a syndromic form of CSA associated with B-cell immunodeficiency, periodic fevers, and developmental delay (SIFD). Here we demonstrate that SIFD is caused by biallelic mutations in TRNT1, the gene encoding the CCA-adding enzyme essential for maturation of both nuclear and mitochondrial transfer RNAs. Using budding yeast lacking the TRNT1 homolog, CCA1, we confirm that the patient-associated TRNT1 mutations result in partial loss of function of TRNT1 and lead to metabolic defects in both the mitochondria and cytosol, which can account for the phenotypic pleiotropy.

Vilanterol and fluticasone furoate for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta2-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is well established in adults as part of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guidelines for the Management of Asthma, leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function and reduction in exacerbations. At present, the commonly used LABAs licensed for use in asthma management (formoterol and salmeterol) require twice-daily administration, whereas VI is a once-daily therapy.Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and ICS therapy is recommended by the BTS asthma guidelines. ICSs, the mainstay of asthma treatment, lead to a reduction in both airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Regular use leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function. ICSs are currently recommended as 'preventer' therapy for patients who use a 'reliever' medication (e.g. short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA), salbutamol) three or more times per week. Most of the commonly used ICS treatments are twice-daily medications, although two once-daily products are currently licensed (ciclesonide and mometasone).At the present time, only one once-daily ICS/LABA combination (FF/VI) is available, and several other combination inhalers are recommended for twice-daily administration. OBJECTIVES: To compare effects of VI and FF in combination versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs, on acute exacerbations and on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults and children with chronic asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included studies up to June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with a diagnosis of asthma. Included studies compared VI and FF combined versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, severe asthma exacerbation, as defined by hospital admissions or treatment with a course of oral corticosteroids, and serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a fixed-effect model. We used standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 6641 randomised participants, of whom 5638 completed the study. All studies lasted between two and 78 weeks and showed good methodological quality overall.We included 10 comparisons in this review, seven for which the dose of VI and FF was 100/25 mcg (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of FF; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of VI; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs FP/SAL 250/25 mcg twice-daily; FF/VI 100/25 vs FP/SAL500/50) and three for which the dose of VI and FF was 200/25 mcg (VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs FP 500 mcg; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs same dose of FF).We found very few opportunities to combine results from the 14 included studies in meta-analyses. We tabulated the data for our pre-specified primary outcomes. In particular, we found insufficient information to assess whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety.Only one of the 14 studies looked at health-related quality of life when comparing VI and FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo and identified a significant advantage of VI/FF 100/25 mcg (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.46; 329 participants); we recognised this as moderate-quality evidence. Only two studies compared VI/FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo with respect to exacerbations; both studies reported no exacerbations in either treatment arm. Five studies (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo) sought information on serious adverse events; all five studies reported no serious adverse events in the VI/FF 100/25 mcg or placebo arms. We found no comparison relevant to our primary outcomes for VI/FF at a higher dose (200/25 mcg) versus placebo.The small number of studies contributing to each comparison precludes the opportunity to draw robust conclusions for clinical practice. These studies were not of sufficient duration to allow conclusions about long-term side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some evidence suggests clear advantages for VI/FF, in combination, compared with placebo, particularly for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow; however, the variety of questions addressed in the included studies did not allow review authors to draw firm conclusions. Information was insufficient for assessment of whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety. It is clear that more research is required to reduce the uncertainties that surround interpretation of these studies. It will be necessary for these findings to be replicated in other work before more robust conclusions are revealed. Only five of the 13 included studies provided data on health-related quality of life, and only six recorded asthma exacerbations. Only one study focused on paediatric patients, so no conclusions can be drawn for the paediatric population. More research is needed, particularly in the primary outcome areas selected for this review, so that we can draw firmer conclusions in the next update of this review.

Acute severe asthma.

Acute exacerbations of asthma are very common reasons for a presentation to emergency departments. This paper focuses on defining the high-risk group, consideration of the concept of phenotypes of acute asthma, the assessment of severe and life-threatening exacerbations and an emphasis on the management of the more severe end of the exacerbation severity. A number of evidence-based guidelines exist throughout the world and are all slightly different. This reflects the poor evidence base for some of those recommendations. Thus, a large variation of treatment drugs, doses and regimen are used and clearly not standardised. This paper aims to present a summary of the best evidence and discuss some of these controversies. The most important aspect of treating an exacerbation of acute asthma is to review regularly and assess response to treatment. Severe and life-threatening episodes should be treated with early use of intravenous treatment in a stepwise manner following the local guidelines. Non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal cannulae delivery of oxygen in the emergency department are evolving modalities, but evidence for their use is currently limited.

Exploring the Barriers to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Nigeria: A Narrative Review.

Breast and cervical cancers are the most common causes of female cancer-related mortality in Nigeria. Early detection and treatment significantly decreases cancer mortality rates. Various factors influence uptake of cancer screening. Cancer awareness, availability of screening, and treatment facilities alone have not been completely successful in improving cancer health behaviour. This review aims to identify and summarise the barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening uptake in Nigeria. Various databases such as PubMed, Psych Info, Google Scholar and EMBASE were extensively searched for existing literature on factors influencing breast and cervical cancer screening in Nigeria. Studies retrieved explored the major socioeconomic factors affecting women's knowledge, perception, and attitude. Embarrassment, low perception of cancer risk, and physician gender preference are some of the most common factors that discouraged women from cancer screening. Lack of spouse permission and support; belief that cancer is a death wish, and societal discrimination are the common sociocultural barriers to screening. These factors vary across different regions in Nigeria. Therefore, policy makers should make deliberate effort to develop cancer management strategies that are tailored to the sociocultural and religious needs in a target population. This approach is anticipated to improve uptake and ensure sustainability of cancer management.

A novel syndrome of congenital sideroblastic anemia, B-cell immunodeficiency, periodic fevers, and developmental delay (SIFD).

Congenital sideroblastic anemias (CSAs) are a heterogeneous group of inherited disorders identified by pathological erythroid precursors with perinuclear mitochondrial iron deposition in bone marrow. An international collaborative group of physicians and laboratory scientists collated clinical information on cases of CSA lacking known causative mutations, identifying a clinical subgroup of CSA associated with B immunodeficiency, periodic fevers, and development delay. Twelve cases from 10 families were identified. Median age at presentation was 2 months. Anemia at diagnosis was sideroblastic, typically severe (median hemoglobin, 7.1 g/dL) and markedly microcytic (median mean corpuscular volume, 62.0 fL). Clinical course involved recurrent febrile illness and gastrointestinal disturbance, lacking an infective cause. Investigation revealed B-cell lymphopenia (CD19⁺ range, 0.016-0.22 × 109/L) and panhypogammaglobulinemia in most cases. Children displayed developmental delay alongside variable neurodegeneration, seizures, cerebellar abnormalities, sensorineural deafness, and other multisystem features. Most required regular blood transfusion, iron chelation, and intravenous immunoglobulin replacement. Median survival was 48 months, with 7 deaths caused by cardiac or multiorgan failure. One child underwent bone marrow transplantation aged 9 months, with apparent cure of the hematologic and immunologic manifestations. We describe and define a novel CSA and B-cell immunodeficiency syndrome with additional features resembling a mitochondrial cytopathy. The molecular etiology is under investigation.

Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 (IL-5), the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which in turn causes airway inflammation. Recent studies have suggested these agents may have a role in reducing exacerbations and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There are no recommendations for the use of mepolizumab in adults or children in the recent update of the BTS/SIGN guidelines (BTS/SIGN 2014). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of mepolizumab with placebo on exacerbations and HRQoL in adults and children with chronic asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR) of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and the reference lists of included studies. Searches were conducted in November 2013 and updated in November 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies on 1707 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included children (over 12 years of age), but they did not report separate findings for the adolescents. Seven studies involved intravenous mepolizumab alone; one included a subcutaneous arm. There was heterogeneity in the severity and clinical pattern of asthma among the participants in the eight studies, varying from mild to moderate atopic asthma, to persistent asthma and eosinophilic asthma with recurrent exacerbations. Selection bias was a concern in several of the studies included in this review.Four trials compared intravenous mepolizumab to placebo in relation to HRQoL. Two studies measured scores from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which showed a non-significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.01 to 0.44; participants = 682), in the direction favouring mepolizumab. The third study used the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and found a significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (MD 6.40, 95% CI 3.15 to 9.65; participants = 576), which indicated a clinically important benefit favouring mepolizumab. A fourth study noted that there was no significant difference but did not provide any data. The two studies in people with eosinophilic asthma showed a reduction in clinically significant exacerbation rates (Risk Ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; participants = 690). However, an analysis of four studies that were not confined to people with eosinophilic asthma indicated considerable heterogeneity and no significant difference in people with one or more exacerbations between mepolizumab and placebo using a random-effects model (Risk Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31; participants = 468; I(2) = 59%).The analysis of serious adverse events indicated a significant difference favouring mepolizumab (Risk ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; participants = 1441; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%). It was not possible to combine the results for adverse events, and we deemed the quality of this evidence to be low.A single study compared subcutaneous mepolizumab to placebo in 385 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma and found an improvement in HRQoL scores and a reduction in asthma exacerbations, including exacerbations requiring admission to hospital. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw firm conclusions from this review with respect to the role of mepolizumab in patients with asthma. Our confidence in the results of this review are limited by the fact that the intravenous route is not currently licensed for mepolizumab, and the evidence for the currently licenced subcutaneous route is limited to a single study in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma.The currently available studies provide evidence that mepolizumab can lead to an improvement in health-related quality of life scores and reduce asthma exacerbations in people with severe eosinophilic asthma.Further research is needed to clarify which subgroups of patients with asthma could potentially benefit from this treatment. Dosage, ideal dosing regimens and duration of treatment need to be clarified, as the studies included in this review differed in their protocols. There are no studies reporting results from children, so we cannot comment on treatment for this age group. At the present time, larger studies using licenced treatment regimens are required to establish the role of mepolizumab in the treatment of severe asthma.